The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

Summary of Reasons for Appeal

A. Defendant A1) The construction permit (hereinafter “instant construction permit”) for the F Multi-Family Housing in the original city of the original city of the original city of the Republic of Korea is due to the insufficient examination by the public official in charge, and it cannot be deemed as due to Defendant A’s deceptive scheme, and thus, Defendant A cannot be deemed as having committed obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means.

B) ① The statute of limitations was imposed on the crime committed in violation of the Certified Architects Act before 2014. ② Defendant A filed a prior report on the architectural design, design supervision, etc. using e-mail with Defendant B from around 2014 to February 2017, and Defendant B filed an application for a building permit, etc. directly with Defendant B as his/her certificate with his/her own certificate from around March 2017. In addition, Defendant A made a direct application with Defendant A’s certificate from around March 2017, but Defendant A permitted Defendant A’s act in advance. In full view of these circumstances, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant A’s appeal 1) Determination on mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to obstruction of the performance of justice by fraudulent means is also based on the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. In addition to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the circumstances duly explained by the lower court, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence, Defendant A’s application for the instant construction permit and the false “certificate of structural safety and earthquake-proof design” submitted by the lower court.